Sep 26, 2010 11:00am EDT
situation is that in the effort to combat possible use of anthrax by a terrorist organization, we've seen an enormous expansion and proliferation of laboratories and personnel who are allowed to work with these so called select agents of which anthrax is one of them. and as security has been lax and oversight has seen accidents and mistakes and lack of event controls, what you have is a real life situation that is far less safe than i think we were a few years ago. and as the government activities proliferate, the chance that terrorists or someone disturbed such as the man is fbi thought was behind the attacks, those chances increase. in a very real sense, i think we're less safe today than ever. >> how is it that historically, it was the government in charge of this biological research. how is it that so much of it has shifted to industry? >> after the anthrax attacks of 2001, the government put in place a lot of programs, government funding such as bioshield and opened it up to private sectors who had the experience, field operation, vehicles, where field testing could take place a
Sep 5, 2010 8:30am EDT
circumstances are certainly new iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere. i do not see us expanding beyond 65 in any case simply was we don't have the manpower to support it. >> how many people are associated with that right now? >> we have about 100en 50 plus people -- we have about 150 plus people for each or get. 18 of the mt1 or bits and global hawk as well. >> they are pulling down enormous amounts of data. how are you managing with this load of information because this war is about getting the right information to the right person at the right time? >> no question. and that is one of our beauties of our on ground information system. we have five of these centers that, one in european and the pacific and one in the central command area. but the central point is that this is multi-disciplinary and multi-intelligence. and we infuse the data and shoot them back out with the networks that we have at our disposal. while this works for now. the reality is we cannot continue to essentially manualize the data that comes off the surveillance platforms. we need to take advantage of the new technology. so
Sep 19, 2010 11:00am EDT
used to in the commercial economy, so that we can continue to offer the same program that we promised the taxpayer for the money the taxpayer can afford to provide us. so every program we're looking for a consistent effort at reducing unnecessary costs. >> and each stage. let's go first to services. most people don't recognize half of what you spend on contractually every year of the $412 billion, 212 of that is services. what are some. things you're got to do better on services and which areas of services you have to do better? >> you're absolutely right. most people think of weapons buying and defense buying, ships, tanks, planes -- half of our spend, 200 of the 400, per year goes to services, and i'll give you some of the things that we know we don't do enough of. we have a large number of services, contracts rewarded non-competitively. and we know that competition needs to better results and services, and there are a number of reasons some mundane dane why we sometimes don't leave time for competition, and so forth some we can increase that. level of competition. the frequency wit
Sep 12, 2010 11:00am EDT
review given the leading use of the u.s. bombers will be conventional strike? >> yes. the nuclear posh review has validated the nuclear trial. all three legs of the trial. c launch missiles and the bomber leg. but the fact of the matter is the current defense program of record, if it does not change, means that the air leg of the nuclear triad will age out and go away. today it consists of b-52's, cruise missiles and that small number of b-2's which can penetrate. over time we believe the b-2's will follow the same path as the b-1 and b-52, become a standoff platform. and they've said they have concerns about the air launch cruise missile and its maintainability over time. so when those systems are no longer able to penetrate and cannot be sustained, we will lose our everything triad. >> exactly. everybody though wants to obviously reduce the cost, the b-2 is very expensive because it was high-end, some accused of being exquisite. but the mission is an extremely demanding mission. how do you not end up with something that is really have to be a lone wolf that has to operate by itself?